ntds_get_trusts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, that it is paginated, that trust authentication secrets are excluded, and that it never replays logs or repairs the database. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but the safety and scope traits are well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core read operation and its constraints are front-loaded, and the field enumeration is compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers behavior and scope well, but with 8 parameters and only 25% schema coverage, the parameter-level gaps leave an agent without enough detail to invoke the tool correctly. It is adequate but clearly incomplete for this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only domain_dn and max_scan have descriptions). The description mentions 'paginated' which loosely implies limit/cursor/offset, but it does not explain ntds_path, max_chars, diagnostic_limit, or how pagination parameters interact. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (offline trusted-domain metadata), and enumerates the returned fields (partner, SID, direction/type/attributes, provenance). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ntds_get_domain_info or ntds_get_object_by_sam, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'offline trusted-domain metadata' implies the tool is used against parsed NTDS files, and 'Read paginated' implies a retrieval context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ntds_get_domain_info), nor any excluded scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.